July 17, 2008

Y chromosomes of Sudanese

American Journal of Physical Anthropology

Y-chromosome variation among Sudanese: Restricted gene flow, concordance with language, geography, and history

Hisham Y. Hassan et al.

Abstract

We study the major levels of Y-chromosome haplogroup variation in 15 Sudanese populations by typing major Y-haplogroups in 445 unrelated males representing the three linguistic families in Sudan. Our analysis shows Sudanese populations fall into haplogroups A, B, E, F, I, J, K, and R in frequencies of 16.9, 7.9, 34.4, 3.1, 1.3, 22.5, 0.9, and 13% respectively. Haplogroups A, B, and E occur mainly in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups including Nilotics, Fur, Borgu, and Masalit; whereas haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups including Arabs, Beja, Copts, and Hausa, and Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group. Mantel tests reveal a strong correlation between genetic and linguistic structures (r = 0.31, P = 0.007), and a similar correlation between genetic and geographic distances (r = 0.29, P = 0.025) that appears after removing nomadic pastoralists of no known geographic locality from the analysis. The bulk of genetic diversity appears to be a consequence of recent migrations and demographic events mainly from Asia and Europe, evident in a higher migration rate for speakers of Afro-Asiatic as compared with the Nilo-Saharan family of languages, and a generally higher effective population size for the former. The data provide insights not only into the history of the Nile Valley, but also in part to the history of Africa and the area of the Sahel.

39 comments:

E is highest (34%) but this fact loses some relevance when J comes second (23%). And specially when J is mentioned as dominant among afroasiatic speakers, not just Arabs, but also the Beja.

I was under the impression that the spread of haplogroup E1b1b (former E3b) was at least partly associated to that of Afroasiatic languages but these results would seem to challenge that idea somewhat, or at least to strongly suggest that the backtide of haplogroup J (mostly related with the Semitic subfamily in that area) has been very strong in any case.

There does not seem to be much difference between the Y-DNA of the Egyptians and the Y-DNA of the Sudanese besides the much higher frequency of haplogroup K(xR) among the Egyptians (which is actually nearly all haplogroup T-M70) and the much higher frequency of haplogroups A and B among the Sudanese (2.7% haplogroup A among Egyptians vs. 16.9% haplogroup A among Sudanese and 0% haplogroup B among Egyptians vs. 7.9% haplogroup B among Sudanese). I think the difference in frequency of haplogroups E, J, and R between the Egyptians and Sudanese is probably not significant, but strictly according to these data, haplogroups E and J are more common among the Egyptians and haplogroup R is more common among the Sudanese.

That's a very interesting comparison, sure. No surprises in Sudan being more Tropical African than Egyptians but I do find some intrigue in being also more "European". I mean they are slightly higher in R and also in I (of course R is not only European nor I either, but the tag makes some sense anyhow) and, while the difference and the proportions involved are rather small, I do wonder about the origins of such difference.

Knowing that West Asia (and Arabs in particular) are low in those haplogroups, I wonder if they may represent some older layer that has been reduced more in Egypt than in Sudan.

Well, I have also seen some data from Upper Egypt that suggest a much higher frequency of haplogroup R, and particularly haplogroup R1b1*, in that region. Haplogroup R seems to display a latitudinal gradient within Egypt, being higher in the south (near Sudan) and lower in the north (near the Mediterranean Sea, Israel, and Arabia). I have no idea what the reason for this could be, since historical European influence on Lower Egypt should have brought an influx of haplogroup R to that region.

Yeah, it would be interesting to see what haplogroup of R we are talking about in Sudan - as it may be part of the ancient back-migration to Cameroon, or more recent.

As the Hausa, Fulani and Tuareg all were once nomadic in the Sahel region, and did a lot of trans-Sahara camel caravan trading, some R may have traveled with them from the Magreb South, and then dispersed West to East, into the Sudan.

From the article: "haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups". These haplogroups all probably have their origin outside Africa. Suugests Afro-Asiatic did not spread from East Africa as usually maintained. Immigrants brought it in.

That "Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group" share haplogroups with Afro-Asiatic groups is also fascinating. Perhaps their Niger-Congo language was adopted from their neighbours? They are a very widespread group.

Well, I have also seen some data from Upper Egypt that suggest a much higher frequency of haplogroup R, and particularly haplogroup R1b1*, in that region. Haplogroup R seems to display a latitudinal gradient within Egypt, being higher in the south (near Sudan) and lower in the north (near the Mediterranean Sea, Israel, and Arabia). I have no idea what the reason for this could be, since historical European influence on Lower Egypt should have brought an influx of haplogroup R to that region.

That is interesting again. Very tentatively, I'd suggest that there has been Paleolithic flow between Northwest and Northeast Africa (in both directions possibly) and that there was also some colonization of North Africa from Iberia (Oranian, I know this is diputed but not settled definitively yet). This pattern is visible in mtDNA U6: Maca-Meyer (2003) concluded that U6 was East African in origin but against what the raw data suggest (she admits that the diversity is clearly highest in Iberia but she excuses her conclussions invoking hypothetical dought-caused bottlenecks and on the rarity of U6 in the rest of Europe). Maybe R1b followed with it and latter a backtide (Capsian) replaced it (largely) in North Africa by E.

...

As the Hausa, Fulani and Tuareg all were once nomadic in the Sahel region, and did a lot of trans-Sahara camel caravan trading, some R may have traveled with them from the Magreb South, and then dispersed West to East, into the Sudan.

I'd rather see Cameroonian R as originating in Sudan or Egypt instead. It's known that Iron smelting spread from Ancient Nubia into Tropical Africa after its destruction by the Axumites. And before that there was some migraton carrying the Neolithic from the Nile probably.

Could they have come in when Sudan was Christianized during the 6th century...

Hardly, IMO. The Aegean is not particularly rich in these haplogroups and the influence was never so big. The only Euromediterranean nations that have influenced Sudan strongly are Egypt and the Arabs, none of them particularly strong in those clades either.

Also, as Ebizur mentions, R is strongest in Upper Egypt than the Delta, the area that was more open to foreign immigration. There is an "ilogical" pattern in this distribution and must have some other (probably older) explanation.

From the article: "haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups". These haplogroups all probably have their origin outside Africa. Suugests Afro-Asiatic did not spread from East Africa as usually maintained. Immigrants brought it in.

Most Sudanese Afroasiatic speakers now are Arabs. Though it's intriguing that it's also the case among the Beja.

But E is certainly much more important among the Afroasiatics of The Horn and this area shows the highest linguistic diversity of this family of languages, as well as strong genetic connections with North Africa via haplogroup E subclades.

That "Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group" share haplogroups with Afro-Asiatic groups is also fascinating. Perhaps their Niger-Congo language was adopted from their neighbours? They are a very widespread group.

The Fulani are original from Senegal and expanded quite rapidly in historical times in eastward direction, filling the power vacuum left by the collapse of Songhai and their brief Moroccan successors. They are now found everywhere in the Sahel, but specially in West Africa anyhow. They are probably a very small group in Sudan that has absorbed many outsiders (my guess), same for the Hausas, whose historical homeland is in Nigeria and Niger.

"From the article: "haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups". These haplogroups all probably have their origin outside Africa. Suggests Afro-Asiatic did not spread from East Africa as usually maintained. Immigrants brought it in."

This is maintained based on archeological and linguistic evidence. The place with the most variation in Afro-Asiatic languages, especially Semitic is not the Middle East or Europe and it is also not Sudan. It is Ethiopia. Ethiopia also has some of the most archaic forms of Semitic languages left.

If these languages came from Southern Arabia/Yemen it is odd that the languages in Ethiopia are far more diverse and archaic than those on the Arabian peninsula...

This is the main argument.

Now this does not mean there has not be reverse gene flow in and out or that non-Semitic speakers were not Semitized in the Middle East.

Some even argue Jews were not originally Semites, but from Anatolia and adopted a dialect of the Canaanite language.

Genes and language are defiantly not the same thing even if they overlap somewhat...

Maju:

Hausa are Afroasiatic speakers, I thought they were thought to have migrated from the East into the Niger and Nigeria border region.

I'm not sure Iron came from Sudan...Iron was being produced by the Nok Culture in central Nigeria by the 2nd century BC...the thing about that is that there is no evidence of Iron work anywhere between the Nile Valley and central Nigeria.

This is why most people think it occurred independently or was brought down by some Berber tribesmen from the Northwestern coast. There was trade with North Africa at this time.

Hausa are Afroasiatic speakers, I thought they were thought to have migrated from the East into the Niger and Nigeria border region.

I know they are Afroasiatic but I don't really know which are their exact origins. Their historical and modern homeland in any case is in West Africa, between the curve of the Niger and Lake Chad.

Wikipedia does claim they originally are from Nubia (it's not sourced though).

I'm not sure Iron came from Sudan...Iron was being produced by the Nok Culture in central Nigeria by the 2nd century BC...the thing about that is that there is no evidence of Iron work anywhere between the Nile Valley and central Nigeria.

You are right. I totally forgot about the mysterious Nok culture.

This is why most people think it occurred independently or was brought down by some Berber tribesmen from the Northwestern coast. There was trade with North Africa at this time.

Oh I don't think Cameroonian R is via the Sahel, it's definitely from the Near East - probably the Jerico region, as they have some of the highest concentration of R1b* anywhere.

I think more modern R may have come via the once Roman provinces of the Maghreb

Doesn't one contradicts the other. Also, do we know if it's R1b* or just R1b without further testing? I am really confused so far about that.

North Africa anyhow doesn't seem to have enough R1b itself right now to cause such a founder effect, right? Nor AFAIK would have Palestine. My hypothesis is that it maybe North Africa was in the past R1b-dominate before the E counter-tide from East Africa.

Guess it will be debated with some interest and eventually further research may clarify something.

Per Arredi 2004, only F*(xH,I,,J2,K) has some small presence in Ethiopia (most likely J1). The dominant clade is E (like 70%), specially as former E3b, and then A and B.

But that paper also detected no R in Sudan. Samples matter.

From memory (some other paper) Somalia is almost only former E3a (rather rare in Ethiopia instead).

Following Arredi's map again, R*(xR1a) (probably some sort of R1b) is specially strong among the Ouldeme and less so the Fali (northern Cameroon?). Apart of that it is also found testimonially in Mali and among the Ewondo (Cameroon probably too). In North Africa it's variable in importance but never more than 20% (Algerian Berbers).

Haplogroup I-M170 has not been observed in any Ethiopian sample that I have seen.

As for haplogroup F(xI, J, K), I only know of a single Ethiopian haplogroup G from the sample of Underhill et al. 2000 ("Y chromosome sequence variation and the history of human populations"), which was reported as haplogroup 71 (i.e. haplogroup F-M89(xM170, M172, M52/M69, M62)) in the original study, but distinguished from haplogroup J(xJ2) in the data table of Semino et al. 2002 ("Ethiopians and Khoisan Share the Deepest Clades of the Human Y-Chromosome Phylogeny"), in which the Ethiopian data of Underhill et al. 2001 was referenced alongside new data on Amhara and Oromo Ethiopians. In any case, it amounts to only 1/88 = 1.1% haplogroup G in an Ethiopian sample of unidentified ethnic affiliation, and I have not encountered haplogroup G in any other published Ethiopian Y-DNA data. Sanchez et al. 2005 ("High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages characterized by E3b1, DYS19-11, DYS392-12 in Somali males") does report 1/201 haplogroup G-M201 and 1/201 haplogroup H-M52 for a total of 2/201 = 1.0% haplogroup F(xI, J, K) among Somalis, however, and Somalis are closely related to other Cushitic peoples in neighboring Ethiopia.

Haplogroup J is quite common in Ethiopia, particularly among Semitic peoples; Semino et al. 2002 has 15/48 = 31.3% J(xJ2) and 1/48 = 2.1% J2 for a total of 16/48 = 33.3% haplogroup J among Amhara (Semitic) and 3/78 = 3.8% J(xJ2) and 1/78 = 1.3% J2 for a total of 4/78 = 5.1% haplogroup J among Oromo (Cushitic). Underhill et al. 2000 had 3/88 = 3.4% haplogroup J(xJ2) among a sample of Ethiopians, which were reported as haplogroup 71 (i.e. haplogroup F-M89(xM170, M172, M52/M69, M62)) in the original study. The data of Underhill et al. 2000 closely resemble the Oromo data of Semino et al. 2002, so I would guess that the Ethiopian sample of Underhill et al. 2000 included mostly Cushitic Ethiopians (perhaps Oromo).

Haplogroup K(xR) has been found in Ethiopia only in the form of haplogroup T-M70; Semino et al. 2002 reports haplogroup T-M70 in 4/78 = 5.1% of Oromo and 2/48 = 4.2% of Amhara, for an average of 6/126 = 4.8% haplogroup T-M70 in Ethiopia. This is much lower than the frequency of haplogroup T in Somalia, whose population is almost purely Cushitic, but haplogroup T still has a substantial presence in strongly Semitic-influenced Ethiopia.

Haplogroup R1-M173 was reported in 1/88 = 1.1% of the Ethiopian sample in Underhill et al. 2000; I am not sure whether they tested their Ethiopian sample for any subclades of haplogroup R1. Semino et al. 2002 did not report finding any samples of haplogroup R in their African samples, which included Oromo, Amhara, Khoisan, and Senegalese. The only form of haplogroup R (or haplogroup P, for that matter) that was found in the Somali sample of Sanchez et al. 2005 was haplogroup R1a1-M17(xR1a1b-M157), which was found in 2/201 = 1.0% of the Somali sample. In any case, it is quite clear that Horn Africans do not possess significant amounts of haplogroup R; haplogroup R in Africa is much more of an Egyptian-Sudanese-Sahelian phenomenon.

Dienekes is correct about the predominance of haplogroup E-M78 among Somalis.

Ok, ok. I just love to embarrass myself now and then. ;)

I suspect that maju may have mistaken some Fulanis for Somalis

No, I just got wrong the haplo as per above. I knew it was distinct from the majority of Ethiopians but my memory skipped a letter and a number when recalling. A "small detail" for my neurones but certainly a big one in meaning.

I would like to issue a small "erratum," however; the study with the sample of 88 Ethiopians of unidentified ethnic affiliation, "Y chromosome sequence variation and the history of human populations" by Underhill et al., was published in 2000, not 2001 (I mistyped this the second time I cited it), and the frequency of haplogroup J among the Oromos in the study by Semino et al. (2002) should be 3/78 = 3.8%, including 2/78 = 2.6% J(xJ2) and 1/78 = 1.3% J2 (I had mistakenly typed 3/78 J(xJ2) and 1/78 J2 for a total of 4/78 = 5.1% J among this Oromo sample).

Anyway, this revision makes the frequency of haplogroup J among the Oromos even lower. The Cushitic populations for which I have Y-DNA data, the Oromos and Somalis (which also happen to be the two most populous Cushitic ethnic groups), have frequencies of haplogroup J that do not amount to even 5% of the total. Haplogroup E is overall the most common Y-DNA haplogroup among these Cushitic peoples (167/201 = 83.1% of Somalis and 62/78 = 79.5% of Oromos), and the only other haplogroup which is found in more than 5% of each of these ethnic groups is haplogroup T-M70 (21/201 = 10.4% of Somalis and 4/78 = 5.1% of Oromos). If males belonging to haplogroup J were truly the only ones responsible for spreading the Proto-Cushitic language to eastern Africa, then it clearly must have been an extreme case of "elite dominance" and not a general demic replacement (an example of the latter being something like the European colonization of the United States).

However, the fact of the matter is that these East African ethnic groups (as well as Egyptians in North Africa) seem to be the source of much diversity within haplogroup E (and perhaps also haplogroup T in the case of the Egyptians) that is now shared among most Afro-Asiatic-speaking ethnic groups in both Africa and Asia. There is certainly a cline between the regions of North and East Africa, which are rich in subclades of haplogroup E, on the one hand and Southwest Asia, which is rich in subclades of haplogroup J, on the other, but haplogroup E is still found in Southwest Asia (especially among Jews and Lebanese, about one quarter of whom belong to haplogroup E) and haplogroup J is also found in Africa (especially among Amharas and Egyptians, about one third of whom belong to haplogroup J).

I can't make any claims about which haplogroup is the more "original" Afro-Asiatic haplogroup on the basis of the data I presently have. I would note, however, that the frequency of haplogroup E seems to never drop below 10% anywhere within the range of the Afro-Asiatic languages, but the frequency of haplogroup J does drop below 10% (or even all the way to zero) in some parts of the Afro-Asiatic world. Thus, I am presently leaning toward haplogroup E as being more "originally Afro-Asiatic" than haplogroup J; the predominance of haplogroup J among Afro-Asiatic (more specifically, Semitic) populations of Southwest Asia might be due to a post-Neolithic assimilation of a local (perhaps Caucasian-speaking) substratum, or it might be that the Southwest Asian Afro-Asiatics were influenced by a post-Neolithic superstratum that derived from a population speaking some Caucasian-related language (Avar?). The hybridized Afro-Asiatic (haplogroup E?) + Caucasian? (haplogroup J?) population might have subsequently invaded northeastern Africa, bringing significant quantities of haplogroup J to this region without changing the generally Afro-Asiatic nature of the linguistic landscape (in other words, just causing much of the region to shift from Berber, Coptic, and Cushitic Afro-Asiatic to Semitic Afro-Asiatic).

I can only agree with that, Ebizur. The dominance of J clades among, specially, the Semitic branch of Afroasiatic would seem to imply some sort of cultural assimilation in the genesis of this ethno-linguistic group (that within the context of the Afroasiatic family is just one among many). J is also dominant/important among other West Asian (and neighbour) groups, while, as you say it may be extremely weak among many Afroasiatic ethnicities of Africa. There has been a back-tide of J to Africa but seems more recent than the spread of Afroasiatic itself, probably associated to that of E1b1b.

I was under the impression that the spread of haplogroup E1b1b (former E3b) was at least partly associated to that of Afroasiatic languages but these results would seem to challenge that idea somewhat, or at least to strongly suggest that the backtide of haplogroup J (mostly related with the Semitic subfamily in that area) has been very strong in any case..

E3b in Africa is indeed almost exclusively associated with the Afro-Asiatic speakers it is believed to have originated with, as well as a few groups who mixed with them. The latter include some Sudanese Nilotes who Hassan et al. (2008) explain likely acquired E3b when Neolithic peoples from Egypt/Libya migrated down to Sudan from E1b1b1a (E-M78)'s place of origin in North Africa after the progressive desertification of the Sahara around 6,000–8,000 years ago.

There does not seem to be much difference between the Y-DNA of the Egyptians and the Y-DNA of the Sudanese besides the much higher frequency of haplogroup K(xR) among the Egyptians (which is actually nearly all haplogroup T-M70) and the much higher frequency of haplogroups A and B among the Sudanese.

There is a huge difference between the Y DNA profiles of Egyptians and Sudanese because there are, in fact, two separate Sudans. Northern Sudan's genetic profile strongly resembles that of Southern Egypt (no surprise there), whereas that of Southern Sudan and the other areas of the country where Nilotic-speakers live is comprised largely of the sub-Saharan haplogroup A (Semino et al. 2004, Cruciani et al. 2002, Arredi et al. 2004) with some E3b acquired through admixture.

That "Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group" share haplogroups with Afro-Asiatic groups is also fascinating. Perhaps their Niger-Congo language was adopted from their neighbours? They are a very widespread group.

The Fulanis aren't a unitary group. They are a conglomeration of E3b-carriers from Northeast Africa, R-carrying Eurasian migrants, and E(xE3b)-carrying sub-Saharan blacks. This is why some of them look Negroid while others do not. The sub-Saharan element within the Fulanis (which is evidently more pronounced in the Fulanis of West Africa) comes courtesy of Fulanized former slaves and through admixture with neighboring blacks. From Valuation of local use and dynamics of 56 woody species in the Sahel (Lykke et al. 2004): "The Fulanis consist of two groups, Fulbe (the former noble pastoral Fulanis) and Rimaybe (the former slaves). In former times, Fulanis lived as nomadic pastoralists who supplemented livestock rearing by limited cultivation. The Fulbe were responsible for livestock rearing whereas the Rimaybe did the more labor-intensive cultivation work. Nowadays, both groups have settled in permanent villages and combine livestock rearing with millet cultivation, handcraft selling and migrant work in neighboring countries." The sub-Saharan element is not indigenous to the Fulanis who, as Hassan et al. (2008) propose, migrated to Africa from elsewhere. Hassan et al. continue that the extra-African origins of the Fulani "is also evident from the frequency of the ‘‘T’’ allele of the lactase persistence gene that is uniquely present in considerable frequencies among the Fulani."

But E is certainly much more important among the Afroasiatics of The Horn and this area shows the highest linguistic diversity of this family of languages, as well as strong genetic connections with North Africa via haplogroup E subclades.

E is not much more important among the Afro-Asiatics of the Horn; only E3b is. Somalis, for instance, have less than 3% combined of sub-Saharan chromosomes per Sanchez et al. (2005). The rest is E3b and Eurasian DNA. Moreover, the E3b in Somalis is almost entirely E-M78, which per Cruciani et al. (2007) originated in North Africa (indeed showing strong genetic connections between the two regions).

If these languages came from Southern Arabia/Yemen it is odd that the languages in Ethiopia are far more diverse and archaic than those on the Arabian peninsula...

While the Afro-Asiatic languages spoken in Ethiopia are indeed more diverse than those spoken in Arabia, some of the Semitic languages still spoken in Yemen (e.g. Soqotri, Bathari, Mehri) are actually much more archaic than any of the Semitic languages spoken in Ethiopia. The earliest attestations of a Semitic language are also in Akkadian. So the Middle East/Arabian peninsula is the most probable Urheimat at least as far as Proto-Semitic is concerned.

This is much lower than the frequency of haplogroup T in Somalia, whose population is almost purely Cushitic...

Cushitic is a linguistic term, not an ethnic one. While most Cushitic speakers in the Horn of Africa are indeed E3b carriers (with some T/J on the side), this is not necessarily indicative of a common origin among the former. For instance, among the Rendille that straddle the border between Ethiopia and Kenya, there is a significant Negroid element acquired through years of admixture with the neighboring Samburu Nilotes. The male offspring of these unions have consequently inherited E3b while being only partly Rendille. The same could be said for the Borena Oromo, who have assimilated many of their former Bantu slaves. Given all this, a more accurate statement would perhaps be to say that the Somalis are mostly E3b (actually, E-M78) since E3b is hardly exclusive to Cushitic speakers.

However, the fact of the matter is that these East African ethnic groups (as well as Egyptians in North Africa) seem to be the source of much diversity within haplogroup E (and perhaps also haplogroup T in the case of the Egyptians) that is now shared among most Afro-Asiatic-speaking ethnic groups in both Africa and Asia. There is certainly a cline between the regions of North and East Africa, which are rich in subclades of haplogroup E, on the one hand and Southwest Asia, which is rich in subclades of haplogroup J, on the other, but haplogroup E is still found in Southwest Asia (especially among Jews and Lebanese, about one quarter of whom belong to haplogroup E) and haplogroup J is also found in Africa (especially among Amharas and Egyptians, about one third of whom belong to haplogroup J).

North Africa and the Horn of Africa are only rich in E3b, but not in any other clades of E. It is only E3b that enjoys a significant presence outside of Africa, in the Middle East among both Arabs and Jews and throughout Europe. Also, the minor presence (typically <2%) of E(xE3b) outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, whereas E3b spread through Neolithic argriculturalists, the Berber/Islamic expansion, and the Roman military.

1. Why do you think that E1b1ba (M78) has North African origins? What do you consider North Africa in this context? Could it be Upper Egypt/Nubia, that looks a most important area in late prehistory, specially in relation with E1b1b and possibly Afroasitic languages? If find hard to think of any other "North African" origin for these but you might be thinking of Morocco, where this clade is most frequent today, but this would posit way too many questions for the interpretation of North African prehistory, specially Capsian culture.

2. The Fulani expanded from West Africa (highland Senegal) to the East in modern times (after the fall of the classical West African empires and the Moroccan interregnum). How do you fit that well known historical process in your scheme?

3. Akkadian is as good to pinpoint the origins of Afroasiatic languages as Hittite, ancient Greek or Sanskrit are for Indoeuropean. That means of nearly no use, of course. Proto-Akkadian semites are known to have been an immigrant group into Mesopotamia and their arrival date (c. 3900 BCE) is much more recent than the usual linguistic estimates for the origin of Afroasiatic languages (from 10,000 to 20,000 years ago). All known linguistic evidence from post-Neolithic West Asia (from Hattic to Sumerian, passing by Hurro-Urartean) does not point to any Afroasiatic connection, but admittedly the Levant remains as an incognite and the earliest attested languages there are certainly Semitic.

In other words, I still think that the origin of Afroasiatic languages must be looked for in Africa, probaly NE Africa, but not sure exactly where (Upper Egypt, Sudan and The Horn are most likely candidates though).

4. North Africa and The Horn are certainly only high in E1b1b (former E3b) but closely related clades like E1b1a and other E haplogroups (including DE*) are only found in Tropical Africa. All this strongly suggests that the haplogroup spread from this continent. The exact pattern is still in need of some archaeological clarification though.

Akkadian is as good to pinpoint the origins of Afroasiatic languages as Hittite, ancient Greek or Sanskrit are for Indoeuropean. That means of nearly no use, of course.

The connection between Indo-European languages is clear & we know for that they all shared a common origin. However, Semitic connection to Berber, Egyptian & Cushitic is not as deep. Semitic influence (not origin--just influence) can be explained in all the 3 families:Egyptian = Hyksos-Canaanites Cushitic = South Arabians-Sabaeans Berber = Phoenicians-Canaanites

Afro-Asiatic is a geographic classification & its not based on a common origin as in Indo-European languages.

E1b1b is more Egyptian related in Hebrews-Canaan (Israel-Lebanon) + neolithic thats also in Greece (without the Afro-Asiatic language or even a few words!

J a clear Semitic MarkerJ (Y-DNA) is 80% in Yemen while its very rare in Somalia & only 10 % in Ethiopia most of among the Semitic speakers -confirming a certain Semitic connection with J- (Amhara, Tigray & Tigrinya carrying it at about 33%).

Highest E1b1b in Semites:Israel 30% Lebanon 25%Both were at one point under Egyptian control & shared Neolithic E1b1b with Greece also 25%, but no Afro-Asiatic language in Greece.

You do have a point about the African and Asiatic genetic differences among Afroasiatic speakers, with J being most strongly associated with Asian Afroasiatics (Semitics) most directly and E with African ones. This basically implies that the core Semitic peoples, were not strongly "Africanized" (genetically speaking) before their own secondary expansion.

But languages can and often are distinct from ancestry. This is nothing that should surprise anyone: languages permeate the genetic clinal lines via cultural influence and elite dominance. Most Indoeuropeans of today for instance have not as ultimate paternal ancestor a PIE-speaking person certainly, equally many Afroasiatic speakers's hyper-grandpa was not originally an Afroasiatic speaker himself. That is probably the case for Semitic peoples, IMO, whose genetics connects them best with other language families, either historical or modern, like the Caucasian famlies or the early historical languages spoken in Mesopotamia and Anatolia (that may also be related to Caucasian languages anyhow).

Conclusion:J is the origin of Semitic & Semitic only

Oversimplistic clearly wrong conclusion. Sorry to be blunt. Y-DNA J is dominant among peoples that historically or even today speak other unrelated languages. J was probably very dominant already in West Asia by the beginning of the Neolithic (if not before) and has remained that way. Did Semitic expansion favor the expansion of J? Yes but that's all. Indoeuropean expansion also favored the spread of I and R1b (and, to some extent, J too) but most do not consider these clades to be a direct product of the spread of IE.

There is a problem with throughtless nationalism/ethnicism: the idea that ethnicities/nations are somehow immutable and that language and genes are necesarily associated. This is not true and specially not true for the most expansive linguistic families: other peoples, often much more numerous, were absorbed once and again in that process of expansion, altering sometimes radically the genetics of the expanding nation(s), even paternally.

We do not know what language was spoken in PPNA or PPNB Levant but we have some idea of which languages were spoken in Bronze Age Mesopotamia (probably Neolithic by origin) and Anatolia and in modern Caucasus and they are not Afroasiatic at all, except for documented recent Semitic arrivals. We also have some references of pre-IE languages of possible West Asian /SE European Neolithic origin throught the European Mediterranean (Crete, Etruscans, Iberians...) and none of these appears to be Afroasiatic, even if the presence, sometmes dominant, of Afroasiatic-related haplogroups (J and E) is associated with the formation of these peoples.

J was always a majority gene in the geographic Arabian plate Levant & the Arabian peninsula.

The Arabian peninsula itself was always & still is an exclusive Semitic region...

"Always" is a too big word and I doubt you can prove such claim, specially for the second statement.

Haplogroup J is also important in other, non-semitic, areas and was surely associated with Neolithic expansion (apparently not Semitic in nature - and probably not even Afroasiatic).

We have no evidence of Semitic languages before c. 3900 BCE, when Semitic peoples are first reported, as foreign invaders, in Iraq. It is possible that they first invaded the Levant, or it is possible that they formed there - hard to say. I'm more inclined for the invasor scheme but, AFAIK, Archaeology is so far lacking in clear evidence. They could not live in the deserts anyhow before at least 4000 BCE (and more likely before c. 2500 BCE), so you can exclude the vast desertic areas that Semitic peoples now inhabit as possible urheimat. That basically leaves two possible origin areas: somewhere in the Levant or Western Arabia/Yemen. Whichever the case, they were surely culturally influenced by African Afroasiatics in heir genesis.

Your own reasoning against E1b1b being a Semitic marker, rather seems to suggest a West/South Arabian origin and not a Levantine one. But it could be well the other way around (and in that case the true genetic impact of Semitic migrations would have been much lower than you think).

In any case, I cannot blame the brief Egyptian occupation of Palestine (and Syria!) for the important presence of E1b1b in Palestine, much less as a large part of it is the same clade (E-V13) as the one found in the Balcans (and other parts of Europe), which must have a Neolithic dispersal timeframe.

"Your own reasoning against E1b1b being a Semitic marker, rather seems to suggest a West/South Arabian origin and not a Levantine one. But it could be well the other way around"

Genetics are much older than language....

E1b1b & J

When I say J population I don't necessary mean Semites, J was still roughly one group around 15,000 BC at the point J extended from Dagestan to Yemen. I suspect desertification of the (Syro Arabian desert) is what split J1 Dagestan from J1 Yemen & J2 was the J population that concentrated around the last fertile region (Mesopotamia).

Northern J1 (smaller group) that spoke Caucasian & smaller isolates around Taurus those also might have spoken other languages that got assimilated by various waves most effective was Aramization of teh &th century BC.

Sub-Mesopotamian J2 were also most likely non-Semitic (Elamites & Hurrians), they had many words that were close to Semitic but had a much simpler grammer. The Northern J2 spoke a language between Caucasian & Semitic their language dissolved under the influence Hittites & other Indo European speaking groups...Many became the Kurds & Luris of today.

Mesopotamian J2 those were the groups in Mesopotamia proper (Sumerian & also Hurrians) these groups were assimilated By Eastern Semites in the South & Western Semites in the center & North. Also Indo Europeans did occupy the region but the major linguistic influence was Semitic, which created Akkadian & Old Babylonian, Aramiac. All Languages with Semitic grammer. however, the words vocabulary is not always Semitic (3 letter verb).

Southern J1This group concentrates along the Western mountains (E1b1b most likely lived on the coastal line between the mountains & Red Sea in coastal groups that continued into Albania) J1 extended on the mountains & the Eastern plains & deserts from Yemen-Hejaz until Lebanon where Southern J1, J2 & E1b1b meet (coastal mountains). J1 Adopted Nomadism & they lived in tribes while Mesopotamian J2 were farmers. Domesticating the Camel around 2800 BC, Murr trade line & the shrinking resources is what drove them to move into Mesopotamia (migration) then later Semitization (the admixture of both groups made the Semitic language). Aramization was the frist standardization around 7th BC then Calssical Arabic a composed language with no native speaking population spread after Islam.

E1b1bE1b1b is a coastal DNA that covered most if not all the coasts of the Red Sea, South & East Med Sea costs, it became concentrated in Greece mainly because of the geography of Greece (lots of coastline compared to Lebanon). I am not going to assume were E1b1b originated (E1b1b not E or E1 or E1b1), I think they were wandering people that did alot of coastal walking. They have a stronger deeper presence in Somalia-Ethiopia compared to there coastal concentration in Greece or the Levant. E1b1b had a habit of adapting other peoples languages. In Greece they simply Hellinized in the Levant & Ethiopia they were Semitized. Berber & Somali are the closest thing to the original E1b1b language, when you subtract the Semitic words (Semitic words always have a verbal root) you get the original E1b1b language.

Sure. But groups of people (nations, tribes, ethnic groups) may at some point become linguistically (and maybe in other aspects) aculturized, right. In fact, we know this has happened more than once specially since Neolithic (or rather Chalcolithic maybe).

So we have the issue of Afroasiatic languages, which as much more diverse and widespread among African (North and NE Africans primarily) groups of E1b1b Y-DNA genetic dominance. Only the Semitic subfamily breaks this rule, what strongly suggests that the original Semites were at some point (partly) aculturized by Africans. The Levant or Western Arabia appear the most likely places for this to have happened.

After that cultural and specially linguistic transformation, the history of Semitic peoples seems fully autonomous anyhow.

I don't think that Semitization happened in Mesopotamia. Semites appear already fully formed when they appear in that area certainly (and also the likely linguistic chronology appears older). The formation of of early Semitic language/s must have happened elsewhere, possibly, as you suggest, among seminomadic pastoralists of the semidesert (the desert was not really habitable until camel domestication, which is a later event most likely). But this happened surely not far from the Red Sea or Egypt.

I don't think that Semitization happened in Mesopotamia. Semites appear already fully formed when they appear in that area certainly (and also the likely linguistic chronology appears older

I try to seperate the period of entering Mesopotamia (3rd Millenia BC), this period is what we know from records (detailed records).

We know the Semitic language was already split into two families as early as 2500 BC, the geographic proximity between Eblaite & Amorite speaking people was contrasted by a linguistic gap of atleast a millenia or so, this means that either Eblaite speakers liek Akkadians were an earlier wave or that they originated from a diff part of the Arabian peninsula (I lean toward this) for 3 reasons:

- Magan-Sumer connections & the culture of Ubar (South East Arabia).

- Mehri & Bathari previously classified as South Semitic are really not related to the South Western group & is closest to Akkadian-Eblaite, the Sabaean Akkadian similarity comes from assimilating the South Eastern 3adid Semites.

- The Empty quarter was the first region to desertify after the ice age, from a Lake to small Oasis the Camel was most likely trapped in that region. Mesopotamia is closer to them & they might have made contacts with Magan-Sumerians.

Most linguists ignore thsi:

* Egyptian of the 2nd Millenia BC (already mixed with earlier Neolithic Mesopotamians & later Canaanites evidence J2 is heavy in lower Egypt -not recent muslim settlements-) The Hebrews might have been a mix of Nomads.

* North Africa was settled by the Phoenicians, the name Kabyle itself a Semitic word.

All these contacts brought some words from civilized Semites who used more words for more things than the natives. so its only normal that their will be a similarity between Semitic & those languages.

The same didn't happen with Persian, because persians already had a progressed defined language that couldn't be assimilated by Semitic. Just imagine the influx of Semitic words in Persia & try to test the same effect on Berber language (then berber is obviously similar to Chadic)

Just thoughts....All humans have a linguistic origin in Africa, but I think Semitic as a language evolved within the southern group of J1 (northern being Dagestani).

The Semitic language has a very simple rule, the verbal origin (of every word). its absent in every other Afro-Asiatic language which clearly shows these words were simply loan words.

SemitizationI am sorry if I am getting boring her, but I want to touch on this. Before the Semites entered Mesopotamia. They were still (not Akkadian or Assyiran...etc)

The admixture of Southern J1 + Mesopotamian J2 the admixture created the Semitic cultures. The language already had the 3 letter root origin before entering Mesopotamia, but they were still tribes & a the earliest Semites we learned about were both J1 & J2 (even with some E1b1b in Phoenicia).

Well, the presence of West Asian J2 in lower Egypt should be no mystery, as it's known to have been influenced by West Asia a lot, once and again. It may have accumulated since Neolithic (followed by nomadic infiltration, like Hyksos, by mere neighbour contact and, certainly by Muslim invasion eventually too).

Phoenicians settled parts of North Africa but specially coastal Tunisia. IDK if the term "Kabylia" is Semitic but Kabyles are clearly not. While Phoenician (and possibly earlier Neolithic influences) may have introduced West Asian genetics in North Africa before Arabs, this influence must have been limited to the coasts and specially Tunisia.

I can agree with Ethiopian J1 being of Asian Semitic origin but for the same reason you could admit that West Asian E1b1b could well be early (pre-Semitic or maybe proto-Semitic) Afroasiatic flow going in the opposite direction at an earlier date. While Semitic languages (subfamily) do appear to be centered in West Asia, Afroasiatic in general (family) are clearly not and mostly follow the distribution of E1b1b.

All these contacts brought some words from civilized Semites who used more words for more things than the natives.

I rather tend to think of early Semitic peoples in general as "desert barbarians", much the same as I think of early Indoeuropeans as "steppe barbarians". Of course some of them got civilized in due time, after they conquered more advanced regions (in the urban/social complexity sense that generally describes civilization - a good example is Mesopotamia, of course). Nomadic pastoralism is not civilization certainly, though may be the premises of invading hordes that can eventually become elites. This seems to have been the case with Semites and IEs.

Even if Semitic peoples introduced maybe some civilization in NE Africa (what may be the case at some point, not in Sudan but maybe in Ethiopia and Somalia), that would not be enough to explain so many, so diverse and so non-Semitic languages in East-NE Africa. You are thinking in simplified terms: always in the same direction, Africa cannot be the origin of anything important, right? Well, you are wrong: not just Afroasiatic languages were originated in Africa but maybe even Mesolithic, understood as transition to Neolithic, as cereal gathering economy. And, of course, humankind originated there too (otherwise we would be a lot more hairy surely).

Just imagine the influx of Semitic words in Persia & try to test the same effect on Berber language (then berber is obviously similar to Chadic)

Sorry but the undrstanding of Afroasitic family now is well beyond mere mass-comparison methodology. It's not a mere sprachbund but a true linguistic family. Languages like Basque, Hungarian, Finnish, Chechen or Tamil may have incorporated many IE words but are clearly not IE. What links Afroasiatic languages is much more than just word coincidences and loanwords. And I'm not the one saying this: it's mainstream and very solid in the field of linguistics - and to be that, it must have gone through decades of discussion and study by many many expert people.

Unless you argue for older (archaeologically unattested) migrations from West Asia into vast stretches of Africa and mass replacement of Afroasiatic divesity by the less diverse Semitic branch in West Asia early on, you have to acknowledge that Afroasiatic must have got an origin somewhere in Africa, probably in modern Sudan, Upper Egypt or somewhere nearby. The Asian origin option is very much untenable.

All humans have a linguistic origin in Africa, but I think Semitic as a language evolved within the southern group of J1 (northern being Dagestani).

Daghestani is not any language, the same that Belgian is not either, unless you mean NE Caucasian. NE and NW Caucasian (different families probably) may be remnants of families once spoken more widely in West Asia. I think these (and probably other families) were replaced by Semitic and Indoeuropean as pastoralist nomads took over the agricultural areas of the region one after the other.

The Semitic language has a very simple rule, the verbal origin (of every word). its absent in every other Afro-Asiatic language which clearly shows these words were simply loan words.

I don't know. Tell that to linguists, sincerely. They seem to agree very strongly by now that Afroasiatic is a monophiletic family. I'm just following the consensus.

I can agree with Ethiopian J1 being of Asian Semitic origin but for the same reason you could admit that West Asian E1b1b could well be early (pre-Semitic or maybe proto-Semitic) Afroasiatic flow going in the opposite direction at an earlier date.

I am not disagreeing with the African influence (genetic, cultural..etc). I even accept an alternate theory of an (F-K) G+IJ+H originating from ice age Ethiopia-Yemen, proving that will be an uphill subject, but I think its a possibility, will better explain the spread of G-J in the same regions & the presenece of high noses in some (non-J) Ethiopians...but thats another subject

African influence came from A, F & E which also passed by the peninsula propbablly using the same routes & a very similar (archaic) language. However, what makes the Semitic language Semitic is its verbal root of every word a trait absent in every other family, its started from primitive roots each verbal root produced 100+ words those words then produced hundreds to subverbs.

I rather tend to think of early Semitic peoples in general as "desert barbarians", much the same as I think of early Indoeuropeans as "steppe barbarians". Of course some of them got civilized in due time, after they conquered more advanced regions (in the urban/social complexity sense that generally describes civilization - a good example is Mesopotamia, of course)

Thats why I prefer to seperate Semitization from the original Proto-Semites.

Where did the Sabaeans, Phoenicians & Hyksos come from?

More than likely they were either displaced or migrated from a ciilized land (into Ethiopia & Tunisia) these people already had alphabets & were full Semites.

While no doubt the Proto-Semites that entered mesopotmia much earlier were primitive Nomads (In Semitic = Bedu). I just use these terms to seperate the early J1 Proto-Semitic tribes from the who were heavily influenced by the Mesopotamian J2 people. The Semites were -more than likely J1/J2 with E1b1b & G %

I don't know. Tell that to linguists, sincerely. They seem to agree very strongly by now that Afroasiatic is a monophiletic family. I'm just following the consensus.

Well till this day linguist still don't recognize Classical Arabic as a composed language (a known fact by teh native speakers!), thats why teh Semitic tree shows Classical Arabic all over with each linguist adding his 2 cents.

I am still learning various semitic languages, most Linguists who studied Semitic languages came from one angle either a western Semitic or Eastern Semitic...which created many contradictions

I consider African languages the proto-language of all languages, but I see a closer connection between Semitic & Caucasian languages that corresponds with a genetic-proximity. Dagestani J1people & Semites are much closer to each other genetically than to any group & they were split from teh peninsula by the desertification then split from Mesopotamia by R1b & Indo European speaking hordes heading West to East through Anatolia followed by R1a & Indo European speaking hordes heading East to West also through Anatolia

Daghestani is not any language, the same that Belgian is not either, unless you mean NE Caucasian. NE and NW Caucasian (different families probably) may be remnants of families once spoken more widely in West Asia. I think these (and probably other families) were replaced by Semitic and Indoeuropean as pastoralist nomads took over the agricultural areas of the region one after the other.

I meant Caucas family in general (High frequency J people), especially Dagestan because they lived in isolation compared to Western & Southern Caucasians

Their high J1 (Y-DNA) is pretty much the same as Peninsular Bedouins & they obviously have a common origin that dates prior to the desertification of the Syro-Arabian desert. No big sclae J1 migration was able to cross North to South or vice verse between 10,000 BC & 3,000 BC. (until the domestication of the Arabian camel around 2800 BC)

DNA shows that The Bactrian Camel was the genetic ancestor of the Arabian Camel, so the Bactrian camel himself was most likely trapped for a couple of Millenias along with southern J1...another interesting topic, which gives a scenario showing a Northern origin of J1 or possibly a back migration of J1 (if F-(K) came from Ethiopia into the Yemenite highlands)

The Hyksos, as you should know, were "barbarian" nomads from the West Asian deserts (possibly including proto-Hebrews) who conquered temporarily an already estabilished and long-lived civilization. They fit perfectly with my concept of early Semitic peoples (and approach well that of Indo-Europeans too, mutatis mutandi).

I will skip the Sabaeans because I don't know enough and are geographically very remote, ok.

The Phoenician/Canaaite genesis is complex and largely obscure (at least to me) but it's very likely that they were the product of a pre-Semitic (local Neolithic cultures) substrate that was culturally assimilated (probably via conquest) to the Semitic sphere about the time when Semitic speakers also appear in Mesopotamia first, or slightly before. Later there were more complex cultural changes, including possibly the influence of the obscure Sea Peoples (Greeks?, others?) and the Jewish/Aramean invasions (second Semitic wave apparently). After all that, the remnants of the locals (that were already Semitic speakers, after the first wave) appear as the historical Phoenicians and begin to exploit the power vacuum left in the transmediterranean trade by Mycenaean Greece at its collapse.

Now you can argue that *maybe* Afroasiatic or Semitic languages were spoken in some areas of the Levant before the very first wave c. 4000 BCE. But that we do not know for sure, nor we can identify easily which areas could those be - much less why they begun speaking a local version of Afroasiatic. Probably Semitic has a single origin, somewhere at the pastoralist semideserts of Western Arabia and coalesced there for some time before flooding the Fertile Crescent.

More than likely they were either displaced or migrated from a ciilized land (into Ethiopia & Tunisia) these people already had alphabets & were full Semites.

We all know that the alphabet is a Phoenician invention (though it's actually an abjad: it has no or limited use for vowels) but that doesn't make the early Semitic peoples civilized, the same that Greek philosophy doesn't make early IEs from the steppes philosphers. These events refer to very different moments, territories and socio-economical developement. Furthermore for the neither Phoenicians nor Greeks were surely, for the greatest part, descendants of the pastoralist conquerors but rather of the subjugated agriculturalists that inhabited the are before the invasions. There was no massive ethnic cleansing in these epysodes but a complex reality of domination, alliances and cultural and linguistical homogeneization under the new rulers that probably took many generaions to consolidate. The pastoralists were not normally going to work the land with their hands, they rather taxed or simply appropiated the land and the product of the pre-existent local farmers, who made up, no doubt, the vast majority of the population after the military-political change of status quo. We are talking of rather marginal (but military powerful) tribes conquering whole nations of traditional farmers. We have seen that happen later in history, for instance in Turkey: the Turks did not want to work the land nor become sedentary: they used for that the pre-existent natives, who, in due time, became also assimilated and are now Turks (just an example that is well documented historiographically, there are many more for sure: it's happened once and again both in history and prehistory).

While no doubt the Proto-Semites that entered mesopotmia much earlier were primitive Nomads (In Semitic = Bedu)

Yah, the famous bedouins... But surely that happened in other agricultural areas too, and I mean in the Levant specially.

I meant Caucas family in general (High frequency J people), especially Dagestan because they lived in isolation compared to Western & Southern Caucasians

Their high J1 (Y-DNA) is pretty much the same as Peninsular Bedouins & they obviously have a common origin that dates prior to the desertification of the Syro-Arabian desert.

Daghestan is a mixture of many ethnicities and languages some of which are NE Caucasian (but also are Chechen and Ingush). This family has been tentatively associate to Hurro-Urartean, though the remaining evidence is limited.

What J1 in the mountains of the Caucasus denotes is that it is not Semitic, at least not exclusively. I think that is very clear and self-evident.

DNA shows that The Bactrian Camel was the genetic ancestor of the Arabian Camel, so the Bactrian camel himself was most likely trapped for a couple of Millenias along with southern...

You are mixing apples and oranges here obviously. The speciation of the dromedary pre-dates human presence in the area most likely and certainly pre-dates any domestication of the beast by a very very long time.

This is crazy and disgraceful. Thats why you will always continue to chase your tales. So Sudan has high J suprise, suprise! Why r u surprised? perhaps u were quick to dismiss the large number of arab lineages in Northern Sudan. This is the best in Gog Magog science a clear sham, grapping straws, schizophrenic at best. I am Somali, I speak somali, arabic, hindi and several cushitic and semetic languages in ethiopia, I suggest you learn Somali its the most ancient of living afro-asiatic languages, so long as gog and magog claim that sumerian is not related to any languages then u will never understand how the semitic language came about. You cant just wipe out facts to create your own historical narrative, the kushitic people had the most ancient civilization, that your bible records and hindu scriptures record, this civilization in retreat was eventually represented by ancient egypt, punt, kush, today this ancient nation's remnants are beyond the rivers of nile, represented and continues to live in he miracalous nature of Somali language, the GADA system of the OROMA, the calendric systems of the borana, what it has left behind is children with amnesia and the pyramids and megaliths.

Having said that, forget about afro-asiatic coming from the middle-east and somehow the arab tribes that moved recently traveling in a time machine to teach berbers, cushitic ancients(egypt, punt and kush), I will have you know if real scientist were at the helm u would realize that the indo-european language, as represented by ancient indian language is related to cushitic language also, Indo-European is just another construct as was aryan myth. May Allah save humanity from the pestilence and insanity which your constructions represent.

"Iron use, in smelting and forging for tools, appears in Nok civilization in Africa by 1200 BC. In other regions of Europe, it started much later. Making it one of the first places for the birth of the iron age."

Old Blog Archive

Dienekes' Anthropology blog is dedicated to human population genetics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and history.

You are free to reuse any of the materials of this blog for non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute them to Dienekes Pontikos and provide a link to either the individual blog entry or to Dienekes Anthropology Blog.

Feel free to send e-mail to Dienekes Pontikos, or follow @dienekesp on Twitter.